OT: Amusing climate change article by Clive James

See ...
<https://www.thegwpf.com/clive-james-climate-alarmists-wont-admit-they-a
re-wrong/>
... in which Clive James warns that despite the continuing evaporation
of evidence for global warming and climate change, climate alarmists
will not give up.

--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."

Do you mean the 2 miles of ice that used to cover Birmingham that
has (in)conveniently melted ?.
Or that annoying flood that has turned Doggerland into the North
Sea, thereby stopping people from walking across from Holland
without a passport ?.
Or the additional 2 hectares of land that Sweden gains every year
as their land mass rises up now the weight of ice has gone ?.

Clive does write a lot of words
I think I can sum up the article more succinctly.
Firstly Clive presents his bona fides : "I speak as one who knows
nothing about the mathematics involved in modelling non-linear systems."
He then demonstrate what appears to be a complete ignorance of logic
too. The article appears to repeatedly use the logic that because idiots
give false arguments in favour of AGW, AGW is proved false.
The bigger the idiot Clive uncovers the more sound his proof. To reach
this groups reputed gold standard of "3 sigma" confidence he just needs
to go to the town centre, find a retarded, wino tramp who supports AGW
because it is "now a bit warmer than it was this morning" and ERGO,
Bob's your uncle, as they say.

"But I do know quite a lot about the mass media, and far too much about
the abuse of language."

He points out that the same sorts of prophets of doom started more than
40 years ago, and their predictions have consistently failed to come true.
To my mind, that's a very good argument for looking closely at today's
prophets.
Many years ago, I used to think you could rely on scientists. That's
before I understood that the funding process automatically leads to bias.

The bottom line is that many of these people are not really proper
scientists. As Clive says, quoting Feynman, if a fact doesn't fit your
theory then you discard the theory. Unlike the Climategate fraudsters
who were unwilling to release their data "in case it was used against
them". Any scientist worth his salt will be quite happy to have his
data and methodologies examined in detail.

--
"Once you adopt the unix paradigm, the variants cease to be a problem - you
bitch, of course, but that's because bitching is fun, unlike M$ OS's, where

+1
There is a very interesting argument in here
(Amazon.com product link shortened)96742360&sr=1-1&keywords=the+armchair+economist
Chapter 22, "Was Einstein credible"
too long to summarise here, that government funding of research
institutes provides a means to differentiate between "good" and "bad"
scientists.
The rest of the book is not a bad read (although very "American"). It
was a precursor to the "Freakonomics" books, and in a similar vein to
Tim Harford.

I thought they did, isn't it 72 virgins if you die for the cause.
"Today is a good day to die", that's klingon or rather worf.
"As of this moment we are all dead, we go into battle to claim our lives this we do gladly for we are Gem'hadar, victory is life." Gem'Hadar

Log in

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.